Customer Reviews

Peter & Paul DVD

5 star:		(59)
4 star:		(14)
3 star:		(10)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(11)

 

 

I think that Anthony Hopkins gives a terrific portrayal of Paul (not that I've ever met Paul....:)

He brings a lot to the character that I have never really considered in reading the Bible. He does a great job at "humanizing" Paul. Paul was such a tremendous apostle at the start of the Christian church. I think Hopkins has given to us, in this film, a look at Paul that truly shows his human side. I tried to understand what might have been Paul's "thorn in the flesh." Maybe it was his arrogance (as he stated himself). I've always thought it was possibly some physical impairment but after seeing this movie, maybe it has more to do with pride, etc. An interesting perspective.

Anyway, I highly recommend the movie. It shows some of what the Bible describes of the relationship between Peter and Paul. The film stays pretty close to what the Bible describes (certainly taking a little artistic license) in filling in some places. Even that though is done very well.

First, I agree with other reviewers here that the portrayal of Paul the Apostle by Anthony Hopkins is a standout performance worthy of an emmy nomination. Robert Foxworth's Peter is also interestingly done but our information is lacking about his ministry when he disappears after Chapter 7 in the book of Acts. Therefore the movie focuses on Paul's attempt to unite Jew,Greek and Roman in a trinity of new Christian faith and this film delivers on that concept, even though it is somewhat romanticized. Some very effective scenes remind you of "Jesus of Nazareth". One suprise is when Paul is being confronted by his "thorn in the flesh" while consulting with Barnabas and Mark, you hear a mysterious sound that is tough to catch but Mark inquires what it is to which Paul replies "just an animal". (Actually it is a devil). Also there is a great confrontation with the woman who throws her voice into statues and animals to ridicule Paul's ministry. When Paul tells her that she won't have the power to do that again it is effective enough to put a fear of the Lord into you! We get to see the journeys of Paul and Barnabas (you will notice a gradual decline in the richness of Barnabas shown in his clothing) , we meet Luke, Timothy, Silas, Mark and get a basic grip on what the spread of Christianity was all about in the ancient world. Nero's fay behavior will get on your nerves especially when he is engaged in conversations about Paul with his jailer. Paul's triumphant entry as a prisoner into Rome will remind you of Jesus and his entry into Jerusalem so much so that it can bring a tear to your eye. The original scene of Paul forgiving the Axeman when he is beheaded has been removed for some reason on this DVD. Well recommended to anyone who wants some insight into the early development of the Church and to understand persecution of the apostles!

Fabulous! Absolutely worth your time. Every christian should have this in their video collection. Anythony Hopkins and Robert Foxworth do a phenominal job of portraying Peter and Paul. Though not perfect, a highly reliable, detailed and very accurate portrayal of those incredible days. Do yourself a favor, make church history real to your kids and new converts to the faith.

First the Bad - The portrayal of Peter is extremely wimpy. A far better portrayal can be found in A.D. played by Denis Quilley.

Now the Good - The portrayal of Paul by Anthony Hopkins was fantastic. The emotion and passion he put into his preaching before the Greeks was excellent. He also portrayed well the human side of Paul. The character of Nero, expertly portrayed by Julian Fellowes, was alone worth the purchase of the DVD. I can only describe it as total creepiness under control.

I would like to mention that this movie was beautifully done. However, there are some places where I was able to tell that it was not Biblically accurate, especially when it approached the accounts in Chapter 15 of the Acts of the Apostles and Chapter 2 of Paul's letter to the Galatians. (Any person who has done careful research of the Bible can point out these flaws.) Peter was not arguing with Paul about the letter from the Church in Jerusalem, which he (Paul) did not reject, but rather separating himself from Gentiles due to fear of being seen like this by certain Jews. Moreover, Judas and Silas were not the Jews who were sent by James and they came to Antioch earlier with Paul and Barnabas while Peter came at a different time. In addition, the Bible does not give any clear evidence that Peter and Paul had been so hostile to one another. I think that people should read Act 15 and Galations 2 carefully before saying that this production is "Biblically accurate" and do some other research as well.

I would, fortunately, like to say that I had not objection to the fact that the movie dwelt far more on Paul than it did on Peter although many important Biblical events surrounding Peter were left out.

Daniel Rory Lally
North Saanich, BC Canada

My wife and I thoroughly enjoyed the movie it was great to have two videos to watch which made it spread out just right. One video would have made the events go too fast. Biblically it is pretty accurate the events happened in the order that they appeared on video. Anthony Hopkins Plays a great Saul Paulus of Tarsus. The only thing I would have liked to see different is that, for the sake of keeping it a two video series, they jumped ahead more than a few times by saying "four years later" another "four years later", and then "eight years later" etc. I would have liked to see what was going on during those times as well. Other than that I would highly recommend this video.

Though I'm not one normally drawn to cheap TV versions of Biblical stories, I was attracted to this film by several famous actors, most notably Anthony Hopkins. This was the hook that got me to watch; I was glad I did.

Positives: Excellent acting from Hopkins, Foxworth, and Davies; insight into the tensions between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians; strong script and dialogue; thoughtful presentation of Scripture.

Negatives: Poor acting (or rather, casting) of Albert and Burr; heavy focus on Paul and little portrayal of Peter's effective role as an early Christian leader; some sections of weak script and scenes that should have been cut/trimmed.

Let me flesh out the positives a little more. Hopkins is mostly brilliant in his portrayal of Paul. At times, he is riveting such as when discussing with the Jerusalem Christians the need for the Gentiles to be welcomed into the Christian faith. Unfortunately, the first fifteen minutes of the movie (also the weakest portion of the movie, in my opinion) portray Paul with a completely different personality that does not make sense, nor is it effective. However, for most of the movie Hopkins does very well. Likewise, Foxworth's portrayal of Peter is dramatically effective. I enjoyed his acting, though I believe the scripted portrayal of Peter was less the rash and passionate Peter portrayed in the Scriptures, but rather a pensive, indecisive, and guilt-ridden Peter. Nevertheless, Foxworth does well.

This movie doesn't follow the Biblical narratives in exacting detail, though it does an admirable job. Yes, the Stephen's martyrdom is weakly portrayed; some of Paul's epistles are delivered verbally "in person" rather than in letter form. There are some flaws...Paul's beard changes goes from dark-gray-dark-gray often in the film... It is truly a TV movie made with a TV movie's budget. Still, this is a well done effort, above average, and a great movie to watch with the whole family.

While this film does provide some insight into the many troubles the early Christians faced as they preached the gospel, it distorts the personalities of Peter and Paul and in many places blatantly ignores the Scriptures. While the Bible does indicate that Paul disagreed with Peter 'once' about the matter of circumcision, it does not lend any support to the theory that Peter and Paul worked in separate ways, enemies with each other. While its ok to show that Paul was human, Paul is shown ranting, screaming and raving many times in the movie which is completely out of line with his many exhortations in the Scriptures to love and live a holy Christian life. Of course Paul is emotional many times in the Scriptures when he confronts error and deception, but this is directed mostly at false believers or Gnostics who distort the truth rather than fellow believers. Plus Paul's personality before his conversion does not reflect one bit of how he himself looked upon himself as in Philippians Ch. 3. The personality of Peter is also heavily downplayed. The movie proceeds as if Peter, James, John and the disciples at Jerusalem did nothing except bicker and argue with each other. Nothing is shown about the power of the Holy Spirit in directing the church and miracles are heavily downplayed. While Scripture tells us that believers were being added daily to the church through the ministry of Peter, Peter is simply shown as a failure who struggled to obey the mission of Jesus. Not even the conversion of Cornelius and his family through Peter's ministry are shown. Also James is a favourite of Hollywood and liberals as the arch enemy of Paul and the proponent of circumcision. I find no basis for this at all in Scripture and the only argument that people mostly come up with is the book of James which places an emphasis on works. It would be well to remind these people that this is not the Reformation we are talking about, but the early church. James the brother of the Lord was called to be the elder of the church at Jerusalem and the only time we really hear him speak in the Acts of the Apostles, he actually supports both Peter and Paul in their ministry to the Gentiles (Acts 15) and exhorts the whole church to do so. While the movie makes this council an episode of acrimony, Acts tells us that the whole council unanimously agreed with the help of the Holy Spirit. The movie makes it look like James used the name of the Holy Spirit in vain to further circumcision. Shouldn't he then have had the same fate as Ananias and Sapphira? I think the redeeming quality of the movie was to show what intense persecutions and trials the early Christians had to endure in order to live their faith and preach the gospel. It was good to see them human and to see that they learned along the way, to see them reconcile, have fun and die for their Lord. But to think that this movie is accurate and faithfully represents the Scripture is a disservice to all those non-Christians and Christians who seek a living faith in Jesus. Finally, I agree with MaryKay about baptisms and ' confirmations' (receiving the Holy Spirit). While Live4Jesus implies that she might be Mormon for thinking that, it is not Mormons, but Christians that Jesus commands. How much more are we to obey the commandments of Jesus than the words of men!

This is one of the best bible movies ever made. Yeah I know, it's a made for TV movie, so it has some of the cheesy sets, make-up and other aspects of the 1980s TV movie genre. It is for these reasons I gave it 4 stars. BUT, the script is brillant and the acting superb. The dialogue throughout the movie incorporates the book of Acts as well as the epistle writings and phrases of Peter and Paul making the New Testament come alive. Anthony Hopkins is great as Paul, but Robert Foxworth is greatly under-used as Peter. There are many now famous actors throughout the movie that will surprise you. As a person who loves reading and studying the bible, I highly recommend this DVD. It will only enhance your understanding of the bible.

Pluses:

I agree with other reviewers that the portrayal of Paul by Anthony Hopkins is an excellent performance. He shows Paul as a real man, fiery, energetic, passionate, yet with a love of God and man, deep, introspective. Eddie Albert was great as Porcius Festus, governor of Judea. Julian Fellowes played a good Nero as well--jealous,fearful,
yet not wholly demented. In general the acting was good or better.

The visuals were excellent (filmed in Greece), including Roman and Greek/Jew customs, palaces, Sea of Galilee, countryside, etc. The screenplay had many pluses including character development, tension, etc. The writers cleverly pull in famous quotes from Paul's epistles, and put it into his thoughts while writing, and his preaching.

Also we learn about the early divisions in the church.

Minuses:

The movement is too slow. Too much time is spent on minor characters like Mark and to a lesser degree Barnabas. Too much dwelling on antagonism between Jewish leaders and Paul over circumcision and the Law.

Not enough "great scenes": Pentecost is left out. Miracles are almost nonexistent. We see "see" Paul's encounter with Jesus on the Road to Damascus but we hear nothing at all! We don't experience Paul at sea, where he encountered a storm of two weeks that cost the ship and nearly all the lives. When he does end up in Malta, the are no miracles (except the implied miracle where a viper bite does not harm Paul) nor do we hear of the conversion of Publius, the chief of the island.

We see Nero but not Paul's trial before him which costs his life. (The book of Acts does not include this, but this movie has many conjectural scenes not in Acts, including Nero visiting Peter in prison; this scene could have been a climax.)

Conclusion:

A good movie that could have been great. Good acting. Slow, but it has its moments. Many wonderful biblical quotes. The movie does help you to understand Paul and his times better. It is well worth seeing!